Robinson redating the new testament
His main and final conclusion thus is “There is, first of all, the observation that all the various types of the early church’s literature (including the Didache, a version of its ‘manual of discipline’) were coming into being more or less concurrently in the period between 40 and 70.”This book will definitely effect you if not completely change your mind on the assumed dates that you have been taught without any internal exegetical or external historical evidence. At some point he asked himself "why any of the books of the New Testament needed to be put after the fall of Jerusalem in 70." He notes that none of the books make any reference (actual or metaphorical) to the destruction of Jerusalem as a past event. Robinson (1919-1983) was a thoroughgoing theological modernist.
Personally I didn’t follow up on the material provided but I’m sure it can be useful to others as he cites many authors unheard of by majority of scholars.
Thus the question of whether the apostle Peter wrote the epistle of II Peter is unimportant, despite its being the subject of never-ending speculation on the part of the theological liberals.
Yet Robinson does the Church a great service by laying bare the ephemeral nature of the claims that many of the New Testament writings were not written by their ascribed authors.
While the author is finite and fallible (as he admits) he does an amazing job dealing with the arguments and counter-arguments and confidently arriving at a date.
The author is clear in making his points and very well equipped with biblical verses to back them up. Being exposed to some of the preteristic authors dating the book of Revelation in 68 AD, I was curious to find out what are the actual dates of the books of the New Testament. This has got to be the most fastidious, lucid and un-tendentious book I’ve read.